At other sites, the debate has stymied to accusation of lying and/or stupid creationists. Followed by derogatory and crude remarks. The discussion of science is rare. Talkorigins is one of the reasons. Look at the opening paragraph on the T-rex soft tissue finds.

A common young earth creationist (YEC) misinterpretation of the discovery of surviving organic molecules in ancient bone is that this "proves" that the Earth is young and that geological and radiometric data should be ignored.

A mischaracterization of creationists as close minded. They go on to say...

The ancient surviving materials they commonly refer to are fragments of hemoglobin and osteocalcin (a bone protein) extracted from dinosaur bone.

First, a typical downplay. And misinformation. Let me get to both. The downplay, especially with the protein. Here is an abstract title from Schwietzer's research.

Hence, the downplay. Protein sequences that last for 65 million years. The funny thing is the evos trust the constants of half lives in radiometric dating, but they can't admit that peptide bonds don't last 65 million years.

But the almost inexcusable kicker is the misinformation this PhD at talkorigins sends out. He says its just a few molecules. But check out this exerpt from Discover.

Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma.

"...translucent blood vessels..." take a little than a few molecules!!! This nearly makes me vomit to be honest! Especially in light of the fact that WE are being called liars.

The truth is talkorigins is lying.

I wanted to leave you with this final quote from the Dicover article. I had heard that Schwietzer had said this, but could never find it. I finally did. This is a case for the fact that our "objective" innocent scientists are not so objective. I would suggest that carreer interests are in the way of truth.

Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says. Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. "But he said, 'Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'" she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register.

SO THE TRUTH COMES OUT. What other things do not register to mainstream scientists? Look at the last line. "To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register." That doesn't sound like a trustworthy collection of science. None of these quotes will ever make the textbooks sadly. But we have to get the truth out, so people will stop and think, before they swallow the LIE!

At other sites, the debate has stymied to accusation of lying and/or stupid creationists. Followed by derogatory and crude remarks. The discussion of science is rare. Talkorigins is one of the reasons. Look at the opening paragraph on the T-rex soft tissue finds. A mischaracterization of creationists as close minded. They go on to say...First, a typical downplay. And misinformation. Let me get to both. The downplay, especially with the protein. Here is an abstract title from Schwietzer's research.Hence, the downplay. Protein sequences that last for 65 million years. The funny thing is the evos trust the constants of half lives in radiometric dating, but they can't admit that peptide bonds don't last 65 million years.But the almost inexcusable kicker is the misinformation this PhD at talkorigins sends out. He says its just a few molecules. But check out this exerpt from Discover."...translucent blood vessels..." take a little than a few molecules!!! This nearly makes me vomit to be honest! Especially in light of the fact that WE are being called liars.

The truth is talkorigins is lying.

I wanted to leave you with this final quote from the Dicover article. I had heard that Schwietzer had said this, but could never find it. I finally did. This is a case for the fact that our "objective" innocent scientists are not so objective. I would suggest that carreer interests are in the way of truth.SO THE TRUTH COMES OUT. What other things do not register to mainstream scientists? Look at the last line. "To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register." That doesn't sound like a trustworthy collection of science. None of these quotes will ever make the textbooks sadly. But we have to get the truth out, so people will stop and think, before they swallow the LIE!

What's new, and what did you expect? As science becomes more bold in claiming that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence, they will become more bold in outright denying anything that does not conform to it, and only for that reason. Conformism is not science.

‎I remember someone saying that only Creationists are spinning the discovery in this way (speaking of the fossils being younger), so I quoted this: "When this shy paleontologist found soft, fresh-looking tissue inside a T. rex femur, she erased a line between past and present. Then all hell broke loose."-- Yeoman, B., SchweitzerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Dangerous Discovery, Discover 27(4):37Ã¢â‚¬â€œ41, 77, April 2...006

My favorite quote from the Schweitzer article above by Yoeman: "Schweitzer remembered, 'One journal reviewer said he didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care what the data said, he knew what I was finding wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t possible. When I asked him, Ã¢â‚¬ËœWhat data would convince yo...u?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ And he said, Ã¢â‚¬ËœNone.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬Â

Here is a quote from an evolutionist on facebook: There is no personal opinion in scientific papers (unless clearly stated, and really needed). Whatever the scientist's personal opinion is doesn't matter, science is what passes peer review, and personal opinions don't go through.

Then we have this unsubstantiated claim from an evo: "BTW SchweitzerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s discovery was found out to be contamination of the t-Rex fossils, not 'tissue.'" and this: "I have to be honest that I don't see the problem how tissue can be conserved for many millions of years in a sealed 'container'."

Current science says that preserving proteins over millions of years is not possible. Schweitzer said that we have to rethink our entire understanding of how complex biomolecules degradeÃ¢â‚¬â€why? Because experimental and theoretical predictions... serve not as an average degradation time but as an upper limit. There is a limit to how long some organic substances can remain without destruction, and current science has that at 17500 years at an average temperature of 10 degrees celcius.

The experiments and theory assume the best possible conditions for preservation, better than the environment that these fossils were found in. www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdfThen we have this video which in no way debunks what it claims it debunks, but rather misrepresents what the paper says, ignore the correct creationist claims instead focusing on other claims, and focuses on sensationalism ignoring the facts.

What's new, and what did you expect? As science becomes more bold in claiming that evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence, they will become more bold in outright denying anything that does not conform to it, and only for that reason. Conformism is not science.

I expect them to say rude things, but it's gotten to where there is barely any serious dialogue, like on here.

It's called a shotgun approach. You're trying to discuss one issue at a time. Then here it comes--but geology, chemistry, genetics etc. all confirm each other and you're a idiot. The shotgun approach is where you present 100 claims at a time without substantiation of any of them. Then you insist they all confirm each other.

Then if you continue to substantiate one point, they refer you to all the unsubstantiated claims they made, and come in with the heavy artillery attack of name calling, discrediting RATE, etc.

My point is that is not scientific debate. It's called an attempt to dominate an information war, and too many people succomb to their tactics.

I expect them to say rude things, but it's gotten to where there is barely any serious dialogue, like on here.

My point is that is not scientific debate. It's called an attempt to dominate an information war, and too many people succomb to their tactics.

Yes, That was what I was running into while looking for reviews of the video I asked about. The bad reviews had no good specific reasons listed for the bad rating, only attacks that had nothing to do with the type of information I was looking for.

What other things do not register to mainstream scientists? Look at the last line. "To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register." That doesn't sound like a trustworthy collection of science. None of these quotes will ever make the textbooks sadly. But we have to get the truth out, so people will stop and think, before they swallow the LIE!

Modern reptiles are considered descendents of reptiles from the Cretaceous. If certain dinosaurs are found to have died out much more recently than previously thought it would be a major surprise but wouldn't impact upon the age of the Earth or the theory of evolution.

Wow, your post is BLUE! lol. That's another thing. I keep saying to evos that geotime is unfalsifiable. One of them insisted that if there was a living dinosaur, or human fossils with dinosaur's it would be falsified. I told them whatever comes up will be circumvented. A hypothesis will be suggested, and new questions will be asked.

Not even 14 C puts doubt in their minds. As soon as you convince them it's innate in some fossils, they jump to "secondary" causes from radiation. I call it the talkorigins trot.

A common young earth creationist (YEC) misinterpretation of the discovery of surviving organic molecules in ancient bone is that this "proves" that the Earth is young and that geological and radiometric data should be ignored.

A mischaracterization of creationists as close minded. They go on to say...

Do YECs not claim that the discovery of such organic materials proves that the Earth is young? It seems to me that this is a common claim of such creationists. Do they not in turn ignore other geological and radiometric data that indicate that such a conclusion is impossible? How is this a mischaracterization of the typical YEC response on the subject?

The ancient surviving materials they commonly refer to are fragments of hemoglobin and osteocalcin (a bone protein) extracted from dinosaur bone.

First, a typical downplay. And misinformation. Let me get to both. The downplay, especially with the protein. Here is an abstract title from Schwietzer's research.

Hence, the downplay. Protein sequences that last for 65 million years. The funny thing is the evos trust the constants of half lives in radiometric dating, but they can't admit that peptide bonds don't last 65 million years.

I see no Ã¢â‚¬Å“downplayÃ¢â‚¬Â at all. You are simply making a claim about protein sequences that was not made in the statement you quote. He made no conclusion as you have done. You go on to make an unsupported claim in terms of the subject at hand that Ã¢â‚¬Å“peptide bondsÃ¢â‚¬Â donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t last 65 million years. This has been suggested by some workers doing these studies because geological and radiometric data combined with the preservation of protein material indicates the possibility. These workers are being open-minded to such a possibility because the data seemed to lead there. Whereas you appear to be closed-minded on the possibility of protein material being preserved for millions of years, as are other YECs I have encountered.

But the almost inexcusable kicker is the misinformation this PhD at talkorigins sends out. He says its just a few molecules. But check out this exerpt from Discover.

I read the article from which you appear to be taking all the quotes and I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find any such claim of Ã¢â‚¬Å“just a few moleculesÃ¢â‚¬Â in it. Perhaps I overlooked where he made this claim, but if so it certainly was not a major point. Can you provide a quote that backs this claim?

The truth is talkorigins is lying.

On the basis of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“just a few moleculesÃ¢â‚¬Â entry I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find?

I wanted to leave you with this final quote from the Dicover article. I had heard that Schwietzer had said this, but could never find it. I finally did. This is a case for the fact that our "objective" innocent scientists are not so objective. I would suggest that carreer interests are in the way of truth.

Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says. Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. "But he said, 'Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'" she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register.

So she was not being objective in saying there was a smell? The only indication of non-objectivity I see here is in the editorial comments added to what she said such as Ã¢â‚¬Å“To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register.Ã¢â‚¬Â But did these old-line paleontologists get the opportunity to smell the bones she had prepared? Who are they exactly?

SO THE TRUTH COMES OUT. What other things do not register to mainstream scientists? Look at the last line. "To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register." That doesn't sound like a trustworthy collection of science. None of these quotes will ever make the textbooks sadly. But we have to get the truth out, so people will stop and think, before they swallow the LIE!

So this line of conjecture by a creationist writer is a basis to rant about the character of scientists in general? First of all you must show a lie, before you battle to keep people from swallowing it. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you have done so here.

Do YECs not claim that the discovery of such organic materials proves that the Earth is young?Ã‚Â It seems to me that this is a common claim of such creationists. Do they not in turn ignore other geological and radiometric data that indicate that such a conclusion is impossible? How is this a mischaracterization of the typical YEC response on the subject?

"Proves" is not acceptable in science. "Supports" is. From a creationist perspective, the find removes support from the claim of dinosaur to bird evolution. Not to mention, the dinosaur is an icon for the evolutionists. The gerneral public sees dinosaurs as equivalent to an old earth.

Also creation science does not ignore nuclear decay. But it challenges the conclusions of radiometric dating, and seeks to explain the assumptions it is based on. Even isochron dating.

The statement seems like a simple statement of the findings. I see no Ã¢â‚¬Å“downplayÃ¢â‚¬Â at all. You are simply making a claim about protein sequences that was not made in the statement you quote. He made no conclusion as you have done. You go on to make an unsupported claim in terms of the subject at hand that Ã¢â‚¬Å“peptide bondsÃ¢â‚¬Â donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t last 65 million years. This has been suggested by some workers doing these studies because geological and radiometric data combined with the preservation of protein material indicates the possibility.

Look at how much carbon is in a heme molecule.One should be able to do 14C dating, because we have an organic (carbon) molecule. Evos would label this unscientific, because of their commitment to geotime. The fact remains though, by the discipline of organic chemistry, that carbon atoms will be in heme and other proteins. A 14C dating would be completely scientific. Let the chips fall.

These workers are being open-minded to such a possibility because the data seemed to lead there. Whereas you appear to be closed-minded on the possibility of protein material being preserved for millions of years, as are other YECs I have encountered.

It depends on your point of view. I could say theses workers are being close minded to the possibility that the bones are not 65 million, but relatively fresh.

It wouldn't be a big deal if it turned out the dinosaur was an "extinct living fossil," if it weren't for the fact that it would discredit bird / dinosaur evolution. That's the only reason. Otherwise, they would probably just say the Trex was a straggling evolutionary survivor, just like cyanobacteria.

I read the article from which you appear to be taking all the quotes and I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find any such claim of Ã¢â‚¬Å“just a few moleculesÃ¢â‚¬Â in it. Perhaps I overlooked where he made this claim, but if so it certainly was not a major point. Can you provide a quote that backs this claim? On the basis of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“just a few moleculesÃ¢â‚¬Â entry I couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find?

Are you sure you read it? You must have skimmed the first paragraph.

"A common young earth creationist (YEC) misinterpretation of the discovery of surviving organic molecules in ancient bone is that this "proves" that the Earth is young and that geological and radiometric data should be ignored. The ancient surviving materials they commonly refer to are fragments of hemoglobin and osteocalcin (a bone protein) extracted from dinosaur bone. There are many problems with their position, but ultimately it reduces to nothing other than they just don't think that organic molecules can last a long while."

So she was not being objective in saying there was a smell? The only indication of non-objectivity I see here is in the editorial comments added to what she said such as Ã¢â‚¬Å“To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register.Ã¢â‚¬Â But did these old-line paleontologists get the opportunity to smell the bones she had prepared? Who are they exactly?

It's her find, not their's. She smelled it, and apparantly so had Horner her boss--more than once. He told her all the bones at Hell Creek smell. I've put the quote there Geode. If you want to try to circumvent the obvious go ahead. Is this how you do science? The bones stink, indicative of decaying flesh.

So this line of conjecture by a creationist writer is a basis to rant about the character of scientists in general? First of all you must show a lie, before you battle to keep people from swallowing it. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you have done so here.

I don't know what creationist writer you are talking about. (?) Unless you are talking about me. I do not have any creationist links in the OP. Talk origins is not creationist either.

The lie is "molecules" and "remnants of hemoglobin and osteocalcin." A cell is not a "remnant" of a protein.

Blood vessels are not "molecules."

Blobs of red (probably from the confirmed presence of heme, which gives blood it's red color) stretchy "material" are not "molecules."

This is a gross misrepresentation of the data. The truth, evolutionists have egg on their face. But they have done a good job spinning it off as nothing.

"You go on to make an unsupported claim in terms of the subject at hand that 'peptide bonds' donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t last 65 million years."[i]

This should support that statement.

Rates of Uncatalyzed Peptide Bond Hydrolysis in Neutral Solution and the Transition State Affinities of Proteases

AbstractTo assess the relative proficiencies of enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of internal and C-terminal peptide bonds, the rates of the corresponding nonenzymatic reactions were examined at elevated temperatures in sealed quartz tubes, yielding linear Arrhenius plots. thylamide, and 350 years for the dipeptide glycylglycine. [I] The results indicate that in neutral solution at 25 Ã‚Â°C, peptide bonds are hydrolyzed with half-times of approximately 500 years for the C-terminal bond of acetylglycylglycine, 600 years for the internal peptide bond of acetylglycylglycine N-me.

Ã‚Â These reactions, insensitive to changing pH or ionic strength, appear to represent uncatalyzed attack by water on the peptide bond. Comparison of rate constants indicates very strong binding of the altered substrate in the transition states for the corresponding enzyme reactions, Ktx attaining a value of less than 10-17 M in carboxypeptidase B. The half-life of the N-terminal peptide bond in glycylglycine N-methylamide, whose hydrolysis might have provided a reference for assessing the catalytic proficiency of an aminopeptidase, could not be determined because this compound undergoes relatively rapid intramolecular displacement to form diketopiperazine (t1/2Ã‚Â 35 days at pH 7 and 37 Ã‚Â°C). The speed of this latter process suggests an evolutionary rationale for posttranslational N-acetylation of proteins in higher organisms, as a protection against rapid degradation.
Six hundred years into 68 million is 113,333 half lives. If a T Rex had 2000 lbs. of protein, does anyone want to do the math? It goes like (estimated) 2000--1000--500--250--125--62--31--16--8--4--2--1--.5--.25--.12--.06--.03--.015--.008--.004--.002--.001.

So after 22 half lives of acetylglycylglycine (13,200 years) we have (estimated) .001 of a pound of protein left. Only 113,311 half lives to go. Do you think there will be anything left?

"[i]You go on to make an unsupported claim in terms of the subject at hand that 'peptide bonds' donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t last 65 million years."[i]

This should support that statement.
Six hundred years into 68 million is 113,333 half lives. If a T Rex had 2000 lbs. of protein, does anyone want to do the math? It goes like (estimated) 2000--1000--500--250--125--62--31--16--8--4--2--1--.5--.25--.12--.06--.03--.015--.008--.004--.002--.001.

So after 22 half lives of acetylglycylglycine (13,200 years) we have (estimated) .001 of a pound of protein left. Only 113,311 half lives to go. Do you think there will be anything left?